Minimum

This PC combination delivers extremely high frame rates in Minimum, with all tested settings and resolutions clearing the 60 FPS playability threshold by a wide margin. The data shows a system that is heavily overqualified for this 2014 third-person shooter, maintaining triple-digit averages even at 4K with maximum settings.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured performance data reveals a linear scaling pattern across resolutions and presets. At 1920x1080, the combination produces exceptional results starting at 369 FPS on Low settings. The Medium preset at 1080p delivers 283 FPS average with a minimum of 240 FPS and maximum of 325 FPS, showing consistent frame pacing. High settings at 1080p yield 237 FPS, while Ultra drops to 181 FPS — still nearly three times the 60 FPS threshold.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance scaling follows expectations. Low settings produce 238 FPS, Medium delivers 182 FPS (155 minimum, 210 maximum), High reaches 153 FPS, and Ultra maintains 117 FPS. The transition from 1080p to 1440p reduces frame rates by roughly 35-38% across most settings, which aligns with the increased pixel count.

At 3840x2160, the system remains firmly in playable territory. Low settings achieve 128 FPS, Medium delivers 98 FPS (83 minimum, 113 maximum), High produces 82 FPS, and Ultra stays at 63 FPS. The 4K Ultra result is particularly notable — it barely clears the 60 FPS line, making it the only tested configuration where the margin becomes narrow. The gap between 1440p Ultra (117 FPS) and 4K Ultra (63 FPS) represents a 46% performance drop, indicating that 4K resolution taxes the GPU significantly more than the CPU.

The data shows no min or max values recorded for most settings, except for the Medium preset at each resolution. This suggests the benchmark methodology captured full frame time data only for Medium, while other presets recorded average values only. The available frame ranges at Medium show tight distributions: 240-325 FPS at 1080p, 155-210 FPS at 1440p, and 83-113 FPS at 4K. These ranges indicate stable performance without major frame drops, as the minimum values stay well above the playable threshold.

How This Combo Ranks

The combination ranks 209th out of 3712 tested combos in Minimum, placing it in the top 5.6% of all systems evaluated. This percentile position reflects the hardware's capability, though the game's age means many modern systems achieve high frame rates. The rank demonstrates that this particular CPU-GPU pairing sits well above average, but it is not the absolute top performer — 208 other combinations produce higher frame rates in this title.

The CPU's overall benchmark percentile of 96 versus all CPUs indicates it outperforms 96% of processors in synthetic workloads. Its average benchmark score of 84003 places it slightly above the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (83807, a 0.2% difference) and the AMD EPYC 4584PX (83090, 1.1% difference). The closest rivals in CPU performance include the AMD EPYC 9135 (82980, 1.2% slower) and the AMD EPYC 7F72 (85072, 1.3% faster). These deltas are small, meaning the CPU's performance headroom in Minimum would be similar across these processors.

The GPU ranks at the 87th percentile versus all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 56083. Its nearest rivals show comparable performance: the AMD Radeon 8060S (55757, 0.6% slower), AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698, 0.7% slower), and AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828, 2.3% slower). The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (57367) sits 2.2% faster. These small deltas suggest the GPU is well-matched within its performance class, and swapping to any of these rivals would produce nearly identical frame rates in Minimum.

Similar Performance Alternatives

The nearestRivals data provides clear guidance on hardware that would behave similarly. For the CPU, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the closest match at just 0.2% lower average benchmark score. This processor would deliver virtually indistinguishable performance in Minimum, which is not CPU-bound at any tested resolution. The AMD EPYC 4584PX (1.1% lower) and AMD EPYC 9135 (1.2% lower) would also produce comparable results, though their server-oriented design might affect other workloads. The AMD EPYC 7F72 is 1.3% faster, making it a marginal upgrade in synthetic terms.

On the GPU side, the AMD Radeon 8060S (0.6% lower) and AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (0.7% lower) are the closest alternatives. These would produce frame rates within a few FPS of the RTX 5080 across all settings and resolutions in Minimum. The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (2.3% lower) would show slightly more noticeable differences, particularly at 4K Ultra where the RTX 5080 only manages 63 FPS — a 2.3% reduction would put it near the 60 FPS boundary. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (2.2% higher) would provide a small buffer at 4K Ultra, potentially reaching 64-65 FPS.

For users considering alternatives, the data indicates that any of these GPU options would maintain playable performance in Minimum. The 4K Ultra setting is the only configuration where the choice of GPU matters significantly, as the margin above 60 FPS is thin even with the RTX 5080.

The Verdict

Yes, this PC can run Minimum exceptionally well. The verdictByResolution data confirms that all four settings — Low, Medium, High, and Ultra — are playable at every tested resolution. The playable threshold is 60 FPS, and the combination exceeds it in every scenario.

At 1920x1080, the best playable setting is Ultra with 181 FPS average. This provides a massive performance buffer, allowing for smooth gameplay even in intense action sequences. At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best option at 117 FPS, still nearly double the threshold. At 3840x2160, Ultra achieves 63 FPS, which technically clears the threshold but leaves only a 3 FPS margin. For 4K gaming, the data suggests that High settings (82 FPS) would provide a more comfortable buffer, though Ultra remains technically playable.

The minimum recorded frame rates reinforce this verdict. The lowest min FPS across all tested configurations is 83 FPS at 4K Medium, which is still well above 60. No configuration dips below the playable threshold at any measured point, indicating consistent performance throughout the benchmark runs.

FAQ

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

A: Yes. At 3840x2160 with Ultra settings, the combination achieves 63 FPS average, which clears the 60 FPS playable threshold. However, the margin is slim — only 3 FPS above the threshold.

Q: What is the highest FPS this combination produces?

A: The highest recorded average is 369 FPS at 1920x1080 with Low settings. The maximum frame rate recorded in any configuration is 325 FPS at 1080p Medium.

Q: Is there any resolution where this system fails to hit 60 FPS?

A: No. All three tested resolutions (1080p, 1440p, and 4K) achieve at least 63 FPS on their most demanding settings. The lowest result across the entire test suite is 63 FPS at 4K Ultra.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its nearest rival?

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 (83807). It outperforms the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 1.1% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.2%, while trailing the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.3%.

Q: How does the GPU compare to similar alternatives?

A: The RTX 5080 scores 56083 on average benchmarks, placing it 0.6% above the AMD Radeon 8060S (55757) and 0.7% above the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55698). It is 2.3% faster than the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X (54828) but 2.2% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE (57367).

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

A: At 2560x1440 with Medium settings, the combination delivers 182 FPS average, with a minimum of 155 FPS and a maximum of 210 FPS.

Best Settings per Resolution

At 1920x1080, the most demanding preset that stays at or above 60 FPS is Ultra, achieving 181 FPS average. This provides maximal visual quality with frame rates nearly three times the threshold.

At 2560x1440, Ultra remains the best choice at 117 FPS average. This setting offers the full visual experience while maintaining a comfortable margin above 60 FPS, with room to spare for demanding scenes.

At 3840x2160, Ultra is technically playable at 63 FPS average, but the margin is only 3 FPS. For users prioritizing stability over maximum visual fidelity, High settings at 82 FPS would provide a more reliable experience. The data shows that Ultra at 4K is the only configuration where the system approaches the performance ceiling.

CPU and GPU Roles

The performance scaling across resolutions reveals which component matters more in Minimum. At 1080p, the system achieves 369 FPS on Low, 283 FPS on Medium, 237 FPS on High, and 181 FPS on Ultra. The progression from Low to Ultra reduces frame rates by 51%, indicating that both CPU and GPU contribute to the scaling.

Moving to 1440p, frame rates drop by approximately 35-38% compared to 1080p at each setting. This consistent scaling suggests the GPU is becoming the limiting factor as resolution increases. At 4K, the performance drops further: Low produces 128 FPS (65% of the 1080p Low result), Medium 98 FPS (35% of 1080p Medium), High 82 FPS (35% of 1080p High), and Ultra 63 FPS (35% of 1080p Ultra).

The pattern shows that from 1080p to 1440p, the frame rate reduction is proportional to the pixel count increase (1.78x pixels yields roughly 1.5-1.6x frame rate reduction). From 1440p to 4K (2.25x pixels), the frame rate reduction is approximately 46-48%, showing diminishing returns in pixel throughput.

The CPU's role diminishes as resolution increases. At 1080p Low (369 FPS), the CPU must feed frames quickly enough to sustain such high rates. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus, with its 24 cores and 24 threads, has the single-thread performance (4823 in PassMark single-thread tests) to handle this demand. At 4K Ultra (63 FPS), the GPU becomes the primary constraint, as the frame rate drops to near the threshold despite the CPU having significant headroom.

The data indicates that for Minimum, the GPU dictates performance at 4K, while the CPU's strength becomes relevant only at 1080p with lower settings where frame rates approach 400 FPS. Users with similar CPU alternatives (within 1.3% performance) would see negligible differences, while GPU swaps within the nearestRivals range (0.6-2.3% difference) would produce more noticeable changes at 4K Ultra specifically.